On the Reliability of the Old Testament

by Kenneth A. Kitchen

For more than two hundred years controversy has raged over the reliability of the Old Testament. Questions about the factuality of its colorful stories of heroes, villains, and kings, for example, have led many critics to see the entire Hebrew Bible as little more than pious fiction. In this fascinating book, noted ancient historian K. A. Kitchen takes strong issue with today's "revisionist" critics and offers a firm foundation for the historicity of the biblical texts. In a detailed, comprehensive, and entertaining manner, Kitchen draws on an unprecedented range of historical data from the ancient Near East -- the Bible's own world -- and uses it to soundly reassess both the biblical record and the critics who condemn it. Working back from the latest periods (for which hard evidence is readily available) to the remotest times, Kitchen systematically shows up the many failures of favored arguments against the Bible and marshals pertinent permanent evidence from antiquity's inscriptions and artifacts to demonstrate the basic honesty of the Old Testament writers.  Enhanced with numerous tables, figures, and maps, On the Reliability of the Old Testament is a must-read for anyone interested in the question of biblical truth.

Genres: History, Theology, Religion, Old Testament, Christianity, Archaeology, Nonfiction

685 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Kenneth Anderson Kitchen was a British biblical scholar, Ancient Near Eastern historian, and Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and honorary research fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, England. He specialised in the ancient Egyptian Ramesside Period (i.e., Dynasties 19-20), and the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt, as well as ancient Egyptian chronology, having written over 250 books and journal articles on these and other subjects since the mid-1950s. He has been described by The Times as "the very architect of Egyptian chronology".

Reviews

[James Korsmo]

If you have watched any Nova or National Geographic specials on pretty much any facet of the Old Testament over the past few years, it very quickly becomes obvious that a rather stark historical minimalism is dominant in the scholarly world, or at least the scholarly world they feature. And this could be dismissed as just media bias, but a similar minimalism is also quite prominent in the OT academic circles and is evidenced in many introductory OT textbook. So what in the OT is historical? The Bible certainly treats the major characters and events in the OT as historical, and it builds its understanding of God and his character from God's acts in history (God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the exodus). So if the OT was entirely made-up history, a fictional construct from after the exile to give a rag-tag band of people an identity, that would have pretty profound implications for how we understand God and how we understand the Bible.



K. A. Kitchen, an emeritus professor of Egyptology at Liverpool University, takes these questions head on, as he systematically looks at the historicity and plausibility of the OT writings in their historical contexts. The book is a detailed era-by-era investigation into the Biblical text (sometimes point out that what we assume the Bible says isn't actually what it reports), cultural settings, archaeological discoveries, and documentary and inscriptional evidence from the Levant and the surrounding world, in order to see whether the Bible's historical record fits with, and often intersects with, the history as it can be understood from outside the Bible.



The book is filled with detail. It is 500 pages of discussion of the evidence and the various approaches to its reconstruction along with careful evaluation of how the historical and archaeological data coheres with the Bible, along with another 150 pages of notes, diagrams, and indices. That's all to say, he deals with all of the major issues that arise out of this wide-ranging subject matter. This mountain of detail and discussion is made easily navigable by its good organization, helpful use of charts, and its concise summaries at the end of each chapter.



Kitchen's careful conclusion is that the minimalism so prevalent in the academy and in popular scholarship today is merely a relic of past assumptions now eclipsed by the evidence. He concludes his investigation of whether the Biblical writings were composed entirely within the postexilic period (400–200 B.C.) or whether they reflect their purported historical settings by asserting, with regard to the divided monarchy, exile, and return, that the Bible's accounts of these periods "show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exists) and of reliability." And, concluding on what can be said of the historicity of the accounts before the united monarchy, when direct evidence is more difficult to find, that "the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period." Thus, he concludes that the Bible's historical accounts make sense in the times that they purport to represent, and don't give evidence of a postexilic invention so popular in academic circles. I must also say that while Kitchen's study is indeed detailed, it is also entertaining, as he shows a warm and sometimes scathing humor as he looks at historical evidence or at rival historical reconstructions. The book was enjoyable to read, and is a very helpful push back against the minimalism that can begin to erode Biblical faith. It certainly isn't the last word on any of these matters, but it is an important and substantial tome that will need to be reckoned with. And if you're not ambitious enough to dig in to all of the data, selective reading of especially important topics and careful reading of all of the introductory and summary materials makes for a good overview of the relevant materials.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the world of biblical studies, especially the Old Testament, minimalists are those who those who argue that a minimum of the OT is rooted in actual historical events while maximalists argue the opposite. That’s a simple definition but it is the gist of the difference between the two ends of the spectrum. Kenneth Kitchen, a renowned expert in Egypt and the ancient Near East, offers a lengthy, highly detailed, and often humorous defense of the (more) maximalist position. Working his way backward from the later biblical books, he proceeds, epoch by epoch, to Genesis, stopping along the way to survey ancient texts, inscriptions, and archaeological remains. He presents a cogent argument for the basic reliability of the biblical account. The book can be read cover to cover, or if you are interested in, for instance, the period of the Judges, you can dip into that section. I found it readable, insightful, and refreshingly commonsensical.

[Daniel MacDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book (so far) defending the historicity of the Old Testament, going all the way back to the Patriarchs. This is the OT equivalent of “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”! K. Kitchen is a force to be reckoned with. The research and data Kitchen puts forward is mind-numbing, but necessary to refute skeptical claims.

My favorite chapter is the second to last, when he uses everything at his disposal to demonstrate that the Patriarchal narrative is historical and dates to very real patriarchs. I never thought there was so much evidence to demonstrate this point so clearly, but Kitchen has shown I was wrong!

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a world full of books written on the historical reliability of the New Testament, this resource is much needed. Kitchen walks through the data in the Biblical narrative, the works from those surrounding Israel, and archeological discoveries to argue that the Old Testament is a reliable source of history. The evidence from non-biblical accounts is incredible as it cooperates with the Biblical texts, and he lays it out well. This book is very fact driven. If you are looking for an accessible book this may not be it, Kitchen’s style is very different from that of a Licona or a Blomberg , but he still effectively presents the data. A necessary resource for those who love apologetics.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a 500-page tour de force of scholarly work from ancient Near East texts that sets the dividing line between faith and evidence. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a greater degree than the author (and I do), you do so because you are a person of faith. If you believe in the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures to a lesser degree than this author, you do so because of insufficient rationality and understanding of the evidence. The fact that this book comes from a perspective that is not faith-based, but rather evidence-based, from someone who knows the relevant Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Levantine textual and archeological evidence, makes it even better. The dry humor makes it an extremely worthy read for someone who has a love of very scholarly books about the Bible that go down very smoothly (unless you’re a minimalist or a disciple of Wellhausen, in which case you would probably be insulted by this weighty tome).

The book is supremely well-organized–the author clearly knows what he is about. It opens with a statement of its goals and scope–to examine the reliability of the Hebrew scriptures as historical texts in light of the relevant knowledge we possess about the Near East at the time of the book’s publication (2003). The book then starts in the divided kingdom era, then the period of the exile and return, the united monarchy, the tribal confederation period, the Exodus, the patriarchs, biblical prophets, biblical “prehistory,” and a few saucy and biting conclusions (in that order). Despite the variability in order from a strict chronological one, the author remains in full command of the evidence (and his ironic and dry sense of humor) throughout.

This is not to say that I agree with all of the book’s conclusions (I don’t), but merely that my disagreement with him exists from the standpoint of someone friendly to his approach to the scriptures and respectful of his credentials as an expert in the relevant texts and archeology of the Near East. Where the author makes conjectures (as he does a lot of in the book’s least satisfying chapter, on biblical prehistory), he says so, to his credit. He happens to believe in a 13th century Exodus, but gives some worthwhile reasons for his position that, while I disagree with on balance, I respect, as it still is an open question.

On the plus side, the book is full of tables, maps, and charts that provide a compelling picture of the biblical world and that demonstrate over and over again that the biblical material begins at a very early date (possibly as early as the third millennium) and that the Pentateuch, except for some very minor updates on terms like Dan for Laish and Ur of the Chaldees, is no later than the 13th century. Most notably, these grounds are not made with on the grounds of faith, but on a variety of independent evidence, including the price of slaves at various eras, the format of contemporary near eastern treaties, the type of shrine used in the tabernacle, and so on. This evidence is widely available (if not widely studied–I myself was familiar with most of it, but not all of it), and makes minimalist and broadly anti-biblical claims untenable from the point of view of fact and reason.

If you read this book and get nothing else out of it, you should understand that the Bible is a genuinely very old book (with its origins going back at least 4000 years, if not longer) with a genuinely historical, fact-based approach, written within contexts of cultural influences at appropriate locations, where they ought to be based on the content of the message. The biblical authors are shown to be broadly aware of contemporary norms of theological history, and are shown to be less given to exaggeration than their peers. By providing a great deal of context, this author, though not an obvious “believer” himself, provides a great service to apologists who have an eye towards historical examination. If you (like me) happen to be that kind of person, this book will make an excellent addition to your library, for demolishing arguments with pointed evidence about the existence of David in three near-contemporary ancient inscriptions, the known existence of Israel as a recognized independent culture from the 13th century in the promised land, and many other worthy areas of study. Suffice it to say, the “legendary” numbers of the Bible will look a lot less legendary to the history student who can compare Solomon’s wealth to that of Orsokon (much of it stolen by his father Shoshenq (better known as Shishak) from Judah and Israel. In short, if you’re friendly to the historical value of the Bible, you will find this book a pleasant read (though it is a fairly long one). If you’re hostile to the truth claims of the Bible, don’t bring weak a priori arguments into examining this book, lest you be found wanting.

[Elliot Lake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book.

It basically makes it incontrovertible that much of the Old Testament is explicitly actually historical in a way which prohibits later authorship.

He proves the historical basis for much of the history past the division of the kingdom and shows that David was a real person, on the basis of archaeological evidence.

He demonstrates the unity of the prophets through the local practices of the gentiles and observing that the current divisions of the biblical scholars tend to be arbitrary.

He also shows hard physical evidence that the Pentateuch is from between 1400BC-1200BC and of a Jewish like population explosion in the 13th Century BC which strangely comes out of nowhere, although I don't necessarily hold to this just yet since I want to read other perspectives. Either way, he completely destroys the validity of Deuteronomistic History and of much of Modern Biblical Scholarship in a way which it cannot recover from beyond conspiracy theories.

Great work. A little bit too secular for my tastes at times, though. He's also brutal on the biblicists.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just phenomenal. Last chapter directly addresses multiple scholars. Actually knows what he's talking about and understands how history and archeology works, surprisingly hard to come by. Hard to understand in some parts, definitely not meant for average Joe's.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is long, but worth reading if you want a good overview of how archeology supports the Old Testament.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kenneth Kitchen is a scholar of the Ancient Near East who criticizes mainstream Biblical scholars for unnecessary skepticism about the historical value of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). He has a vast knowledge of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient Near Eastern documents. Kitchen sharply criticizes the view, classically expressed by Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, that the Pentateuch had four main sources from different time periods, J(awist), E(loist), D(euteronomist, and P(riestly). The classic position also holds that the material from Deuteronomy to II Kings was the product of the Deuternomistic School that focused on God rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked.. While contemporary scholars do not usually think of these sources as individual documents any more, but as multiple sources unified under particular schools of thought, this does not matter to Kitchen, He systematically destroys the classic view and also refutes the classical critical view that most of the Old Testament is non-historical.

Kitchen makes the strong point that literary analysis of Ancient Near Eastern texts should focus on how actual ancient Near Eastern texts are written. He notes that the indications that modern and contemporary scholars seek when looking for sources do not apply to ancient Near Eastern literature. Thus he argues that the Pentateuch primarily is a unity, mostly written by Moses, but finalized later. He denies the existence of a Deuternomistic School, noting that punishment for sin and reward for obeying God or the gods was a common theme in ancient Near Eastern literature long before the traditional date of Deuteronomy. Later, Kitchen makes a strong case for the unity of Isaiah. His arguments for the basic historical accuracy of the Old Testament are powerful and depend on his many years of studying ancient Near Eastern archaeology. He points out that the stories of the Patriarchs in Genesis only make sense in an early second millennium B.C. context. The laws in the Pentateuch only make sense given a late second millennium context and do not make sense later. Kitchen notes the rich archaeological evidence for the existence of Old Testament characters, including references to "Bet David," "House of David" and seals of servants of various kings of Israel and Judah from Uzziah of Judah onward. He destroys some claims of critics, such as the claim that camels were not domesticated until the late second millennium B.C. and could not have been used by the Patriarchs. He points to archaeological evidence of domesticated camels dating from the early second millennium B.C.

In my judgment, Kitchen succeeds admirably in proving his thesis that the Old Testament is as reliable as any other ancient Near Eastern historical source. He reveals the flimsiness of arguments by Biblical scholars, and is free with his sarcasm when he identifies the obvious errors, fallacies, and even deceptive tactics of these scholars. The section of the book where he criticizes the New Criticism nonsense is worth the price of the book. I highly recommend this book to anyone studying the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible if you prefer).

[Daniel Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is the Old Testament (39 books of the Bible) reliable? A concept known as "Biblical minimalism," starting in the 1870s (and gaining popularity in the 1990s), argued that the Bible is not reliable as history, and in fact even the concept of "Israel" should be disputed. Minimalists view the OT has being written 400–200 B.C., well after the events they cover. In addition, they argue that the books are basically fiction, with "no roots in the real history of the Near East during circa 2000–400 B.C." Is this true? Along similar lines, one school of thought believes Deuteronomy was "fraudulently cooked up in 622 [B.C.] by priests wanting temple reform . . . and that this then became the fount of everything else similar in the Hebrew Bible." Again, is this worthy of trust?

In On the Reliability of the Old Testament, scholar K.A. Kitchen disagrees vehemently with the minimalist position (he is a Biblical maximist), and presents his case for the historicity of the Old Testament. His approach is to "go back both to the writings of the Old Testament and to the very varied data that have so far been recovered from the world in which those writings were born, whether early or late." This 'very varied data' includes external records (writings found in Egypt, Assyria, and so on) and Archaeological evidence. And then he compares all against each other to see what results. Put another way, in each chapter, he examines "first the actual physiognomy and contents of the biblical account, and then its wider literary, conceptual, and archaeological context." A summary of his findings/arguments is on my blog.

Agree with him or not, Kitchen is certainly thorough. This book is 500 pages of text, 100 pages of notes/citations, and 40 pages of figures. The reading is systematic and dry; he presents as much as the archaeological field knew at the time (2003). He also looks at all literary/textual aspects: names, people groups, cultures, elements like pottery and tabernacle styles, terrain/livelihoods, literature characteristics, population explosion during a certain era, and more. Overall, he does a great job, and this is an excellent reference. Unless a plethora of additional material turns up (and it just might), there is a lot we will not know for certain . . . but there is good reason for confidence in what we have.

[Christopher G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some scholars insist that the Old Testament was fabricated and that no evidence exists to prove these people and events ever took place. This argument stems from a number of reasons including: bias, self agenda, inadequate research, and the earliest written record only dates back to 200 b.c. Kitchen counters their claims by evaluating both direct and indirect evidence throughout the entire timeline of the Old Testament. The direct evidence is most abundant after 1000 b.c. while prior to that time indirect evidence is the emphasis of focus. When everything is considered “the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as it's writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data.”
Kitchen’s approach to the book is two fold. First, his primary objective is to draw attention to the abundance of evidence available that corroborates the Old Testament. Second, he uses this evidence as an apologetic defense against the claims that the Old Testament is untrue. The presentation of material however, does not match the organization of the Bible. He starts with the divided kingdom and works back through time in several stages. Although this didn't detract from the quality of the book, it was a slight annoyance that was a matter of personal preference.
The information presented in this book would be useful for a number of applications. These include: validating the Old Testament, refuting the counter claims that the Old Testament is unreliable, establishing context for exegetical study of passages, a comparative look at other textual resources, and a resource for relevant resources relating to an area of Old Testament studies

[Reidar Røyset · Rating 4 out of 5]

K. A. Kitchen sitt formål med denne boka er å argumentere for at tekstane GT sine historiske koplingar til dei ulike periodane som dei påstår å ha blitt til i. Han gjev skarp og god tekstkritkk for å vise at tekstane ikkje strider om det vi veit om perioda mellom 3000f.Kr-700f.Kr og at f.eks Mosebøkene ikkje bærer preg av å ha blitt skriven på 700-talet f.Kr, men brukar språk som ein berre ser i perioda 2000-1200f.Kr. Dette er dermed ein kjelde om ein skal drøfte legitimiteten til det Deutrokanoniske Historieverk.

Kritikken mot denne boka handlar for det meste om språk. Kitchen har ikkje alltid det mest akademiske språket, men ikkje at det går utover innhaldet i det som står der. Du kan spesielt merke det når silkehanskane kjem av i siste kapittel, der han behandlar bibelske minimalistar som T. L. Thompson, I. Finkelstein og J. Wellhausen

Ein kan også stille spørsmål til om han ikkje av og til brukar same logikk som dei han argumenterar mot. Der minimalistar vil seie «Vi har ingen bevis for at dette har skjedd, dermed har det ikkje skjedd», seier tilsynelatande Kitchen av og til «Vi har ingen bevis som talar imot, dermed har det skjedd.» Men dette er hovudsakleg pirk som ikkje øydelegg for heilheita til Kitchen sitt argument.

Kapittel som eg likte særleg godt var:
5. Humble Beginnings – around and in Canaan
6. Lotus Eating and Moving On – Exodus and Covenant
8. A Vitamin Supplement – Prophets and Prophecy
10. Last things Last – a Few Conclusions

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is Kitchen's Magnum Opus on the Old Testament and what a fantastic book this is. It came out in 2003 and I hope he does an update for the 20th or 25th anniversary.

Kitchen's thesis is that we have good reason and evidence to think that the narrative in the Old Testament is reliable. The attempts by the minimalists fail and deliberately ignore the ever growing mound of archaeological evidence.

The chapters go backwards in time - starting with the end of the Hebrew Kingdoms and working backwards all the way to the Patriarchs and then finally the pre-history of Genesis 1-11. He makes a very detailed and careful case for the accuracy of the accounts and how they all match the evidence we have from those periods even though we don't always have direct evidence such as records from Egypt of an Exodus. That is of course because we have no records of any kind in papyrus from that time period.

The last 50 pages are a wonderful and brutal take-down of the minimalists such as Finkelstein and Silberman as well as a savaging of that old anti-Semitic and overrated German critic Wellhausen and his fraudulent JEPD theory.

This book is not a light read - it is 500 pages of rather dense material but is an absolute must have volume for any serious apologist and/or Old Testament student.

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is SO good, and a hugely important read! Thorough, detailed, and clear - despite covering some very technical material. It's not at all an easy read, but it does such a good job of making the maximalist case for biblical history.

Whilst not insisting that we have to accept the theological content and interpretation of the events, Kitchen makes a strong case - from explicit and implicit evidence - that the content of the Old Testament corresponds to historical events that took place within clearly defined time periods and geographical locations.

My only gripe (which is no fault of this book - hence I've given it 5 stars) is that there doesn't seem to be a popular-level equivalent, getting the content and arguments of this book into the mainstream. There really should be, and I can only hope someone is busily working away at it right now. So I would hesitate to recommend this to everyone, but would thoroughly recommend it to every OT scholar, or person willing to think deeply about the historical reliability of the Hebrew Bible.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many of his arguments were well stated. His take on how to read Joshua made sense and reworked many of the arguments I have read elsewhere, helping to reframe some of the assumptions about this text.

I will say that his analysis of the Documentary Hypothesis had serious flaws. To really make his case, he needed to get into the arguments the scholars have put forth, for the linguistic evidence, the seams in the text, their consistency- these cannot be simply glossed over. They must be engaged. His only engagement of the the DH is that we do not have a J stand alone text. This simply will not do.

But his overall take that the Hebrew Bible is not a production of 400-200 BCE scribes is well argued and convincing. His argument that the Deuteronomistic historian did not exist was not convincing to me. He even shows cracks in his argument on page 294 when he gives space for editing in 622 BCE.

But overall, I appreciated his work and still give it 4 stars.

[Ashton Herrod · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great facts! This is definitely a book that is needed to show through the archaeological evidence and the historical textual evidence that the Old Testament is reliable as far as we can tell with the information we have now. In addition, the evidence we continue to get nowadays is showing more and more that the Old Testament is historically reliable. He is extremely fair in his dealings with the information and I enjoyed reading this. The only real issue I had with it was that I didn’t think it was necessary for him to explain the miracles of the old testament in a physical, non-supernatural context. I think people in Western culture feel as if that is necessary and perhaps it can be of value to them, but people in the east and other contexts don’t have as much of a problem with supernatural things. Besides that, this was a great book.

[Nick Sommers · Rating 4 out of 5]

A highly academic book. Read for a seminary class on Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen is a world renowned Egyptologist who undertook to write a defense of the Old Testament against secular biblical criticism. Though this book is a difficult read filled with technical language, it is worth the effort. I believe Kitchen succeeded in demonstrating that the Old Testament is a remarkably reliable and historically accurate collection of ancient documents. Modern atheists and secularists who dismiss the Bible as something made up by primitive men seeking power should realize that the more archaeologists have dug up, the more the historicity of the Bible has been affirmed. The Bible is real!

[Andre Abija · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty dense book, but KA Kitchens walks the reader through the hard archeological data that, put together, makes the religious evolution hypotheses of Wellhausen and minimalists that followed untenable and unreasonable. Comparing the Hebrew Bible to the facts that were know about the Ancient Near East through the millennia, paints a picture that the underlying material throughout the Hebrew Bible originated in the times it purports to be from.

Wouldn’t recommend this to a casual student of biblical studies, but it is good for those who want to catch up on the state of archeology at the end of the 20th century and how that challenges the academic dogmatism in biblical studies

[Brice Bigham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen offers compelling evidence for the reliability of the Hebrew Bible. He compares the text with documents contemporary to the OT and archaeological finds - all which refute the claim that the majority of the OT was written after the 6th century BC, and that it could not be idealized fiction all made up by some late or post-exilic author(s). If scholars truly do their homework - the evidence in support of the reliability of the Biblical record is overwhelming.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read, although a bit rambling at times (especially at the end of the book). Kitchen provides a reassessment of the major periods of biblical history beginning with the "United" Kingdom. Some of his writing is technical and without having a lot of Archaeological/ANE/Semitic linguistics experience it can be hard to read, but I think there are enough nuggets that warrants a read for most.

[Kelle Craft · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely detailed-which is good. But at times, very dry and reads like a collection of history details and facts. Most useful for selective use, research purposes, or inquiries into specific issues with the OT or skeptical questions. Very good example of how to assess comparative materials alongside the biblical evidence, rather than using them as a rod with which to measure the Biblical accounts.

[Emily Gayle · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can tell Kitchen is extremely passionate about his subject matter and his research. I really enjoyed his sense of humor in his writing. For instance: "Just one gold/ivory throne? Really! Solomon, you must do better than that." (Kitchen, 130). The one downfall for me is that he was so long-winded. Every chapter read felt like I was reading a novel. He packed so much information in for the reader that it was hard to remain focused on what was being discussed in the first place.

[Joel Olsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a really interesting book. Though I already knew a lot of his points already. But repetition is always good. It is a large and detailed book, with lots of references that can be hard to understand if you lack prior knowledge of the ancient near east. Lucky I have both studied assyriology and read similiar books in the past so I understood most of his points though sometimes his points just went over my head. I must say it was a really interesting read.

[David Tee · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very thorough and detailed work where you get as much information in the endnotes as you do the different chapters. Mr. Kitchen is well versed on this topic and puts the minimalists like I Finkelstein and Mr. Silbermann in their places.

He is known to be an evangelical archaeologist and Egyptologist and his work =does not ruin the faith nor cast doubt on the Bible.

[Brian White · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thorough treatment of the historical documents, archeology, ... related to the setting of the old testament. Well worth the read!

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

A rather fun romp through the actual evidence for the history as portrayed by the Scriptures... which comes strongly down on the side of the OT being an historically reliable source.

[Melinda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book, interestingly written. Very in-depth.

[Parker Samelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally a crushing blow to radical anti-Semitic liberal minimalist scholars.

[Nicole Cober-Lake · Rating 4 out of 5]

*On the Reliability of the Old Testament* is a long, thorough work evaluating the state of current archaeological evidence relating to Old Testament historical narratives. Using a reverse chronology, the book considers the exile and return of the Israelites, Joshua's conquest and occupation of Canaan, the exodus from Egypt, the people's sojourn in Egypt, and the days of the patriarchs. Kitchen's approach is scholarly and very logical. In each chapter, he first outlines the Biblical narrative and briefly surveys the available sources, then evaluates the sources at great length both for their reliability and the precise information they provide, and concludes with a summary of the evidence. His discussion of the sources can be technical at times, so while the reader does not have to be an expert in the ancient world or its archaeology, a strong working knowledge of archaeological methods and a general sense of Ancient Near Eastern history is very helpful.

For me, Kitchen gains credibility by not trying to do more with the evidence than it can bear. He readily admits when we don't possess definitive information from a time period or geographical area. However, his key insight really changed the way I think about Biblical archaeology. While he admits that in the absence of more information, we are sometimes unable to absolutely verify a particular story, Kitchen masterfully marshals the information we do have to show how remarkably accurate the Biblical narratives are in their portrayal of the times and places in which they purport to be set. For example, while we have no specific artifacts linked to the patriarch Abraham, we do have hundreds of examples of Near Eastern covenants written in a particular genre that can be meticulously dated, and which match the time period and format of the covenants preserved in Genesis. Filled with many similar examples across the entire span of the Old Testament period, the book makes an elegant and modest case for the authenticity of the texts within their very real historical worlds.

Throughout, the learned tone of the book is sprinkled with dry side comments from Kitchen himself. He tells us his colleagues' arguments are foolish. He gently scolds promising scholars for the errors in their books. The effect is one of sitting down with an older gentleman who has made his name and achieved his success, and who no longer has to play politics, so has no time for anything other than calling it like he sees it. These moments both enlivened a long narrative and endeared its author to me.

Although I enjoyed this book greatly, I would only recommend it to those for whom Biblical archaeology is a real passion. If you're looking for a more basic and accessible introduction, I'd suggest reading James Hoffmeier's Biblical Archaeology. Hoffmeier is extensively cited in Kitchen, and his information is far less technical.

[Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book detailing the archeological evidence used to historically date or verify the Old Testament. Kitchen pushes back the most important dates nearer to the time historical tradition commonly accepts in terms of authorship.

For instance, Kitchen makes the case for the Pentateuch being written close to or at the time of Moses. Moses might have written parts of the writings attributed to his name or not. Whether he did or not is not nearly so significant in terms of the proximity of the writing to the material events.

That the writings of the Old Testament can actually have been written in factual accordance with the real deeds or sayings in reflection of real words or actions of real prophets, priests or kings, is not just scientifically possible, but maybe even probable.

Kitchen’s argument is based largely on the structure of covenant texts from the respective times in question (which resemble ancient legal contracts), an immense treasure of archeological evidence, in addition to extra-Biblical sources or more honest approaches to Historical criticism.

Based on Kitchen's arguments there is reason to question the JEPD thesis that arose with the advent of the Critical Method at the turn of the 20th century. According to the JEPD thesis 4 separate sources can be discerned from the five books of Moses that were supposedly redacted together at a later date (between the divided Kingdom and the Exile in Babylon).

There is really no substantial evidence for this. The theory is posited in a vacuum outside of tangible evidence from modern archeology.

Historical criticism of the Bible was relatively new "science" when the theory was invented. Scholars often enthusiastically embrace speculative theories when first made known to the public.

According to the research presented in this book by Kitchen the Old Testament is actually more akin to what the traditional authority of the Church has always believed.

Interesting book to say the least, albeit a little dry at times. Biblical scholarship is incredibly complex.

Simple answers do not exist for the most part. Wide disagreements persist amongst experts. I submit that my authority is humble on this subject.